October 17, 2008

LOL. He's answering Katie Couric's question why politicians risk everything by committing adultery. McCain is asked the question too in this clip, and it's interesting to see the similarities and differences between the 2 candidates:

The most fascinating thing to me in this clip is -- can you guess? -- the way Obama moves his mouth in silent words at 0:46. I've never seen him do that. That's a completely new mannerism for him as he answers a question that is far from any question I've seen him try to answer before. In context, it seems to show him trying to get to the right answer, as if it needs a little rehearsal, which is striking since the answer he arrives at through this lip-fumbling is that he wants to be, truly, the person he seems to be: "that there's no gap between who I am and the face that I'm presenting in the world."

To compare the 2 candidates: Both refrain from explaining why other politicians do what they do, and both reflect on their own behavior. Obviously, the 2 men are differently situated, since we know that McCain committed adultery. (Long ago, but still.) McCain stresses the Biblical admonition: "Judge not." (The full text is:"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.")

Obama stresses his personal effort to achieve integrity. Obama's answer is more articulate, more deeply touching. I like the way we can see him thinking, formulating values. McCain by contrast, takes refuge in the teachings of traditional morality. This is evidence -- take note! -- that in some very fundamental way Obama is a liberal and McCain is a conservative.

Oh, now look how serious I've gotten! My post title is now completely off. This happens a lot. I should change it. But for some reason, I do not.

"I like the way we can see him thinking, formulating values. McCain by contrast, takes refuge in the teachings of traditional morality. This is evidence -- take note! -- that in some very fundamental way Obama is a liberal and McCain is a conservative."

You hit the nail on the head above, Ann. Liberals "formulate" values on an as-needed basis, while conservatives "take refuge" in "traditional" morality. Yup, "traditional morality," the last "refuge" of the scoundrel.

Obama's wife is still young and competitive with other women. His kids are young and cute and fun to be around. He is living through the best days of his marriage...When I was young I was skinny without effort. Now that I am older my weight is in check only because I go to bed hungry once or twice a week. My paunch at 60 is a better gauge of my self control than my flat stomach was at 40....You are giving Obama credit for giving up broccoli for Lent.

We’ve been watching Barack Obama for two years now, and in all that time there hasn’t been a moment in which he has publicly lost his self-control.

This has been a period of tumult, combat, exhaustion and crisis. And yet there hasn’t been a moment when he has displayed rage, resentment, fear, anxiety, bitterness, tears, ecstasy, self-pity or impulsiveness.Skip to next paragraph

Some candidates are motivated by something they lack. For L.B.J., it was respect. For Bill Clinton, it was adoration. These politicians are motivated to fill that void.

Their challenge once in office is self-regulation. How will they control the demons, insecurities and longings that fired their ambitions?

But other candidates are propelled by what some psychologists call self-efficacy, the placid assumption that they can handle whatever the future throws at them.

Candidates in this mold, most heroically F.D.R. and Ronald Reagan, are driven upward by a desire to realize some capacity in their nature. They rise with an unshakable serenity that is inexplicable to their critics and infuriating to their foes.

Obama has the biography of the first group but the personality of the second. He grew up with an absent father and a peripatetic mother. “I learned long ago to distrust my childhood,” he wrote in “Dreams From My Father.” This is supposed to produce a politician with gaping personal needs and hidden wounds.

But over the past two years, Obama has never shown evidence of that. Instead, he has shown the same untroubled self-confidence day after day.

It's been apparent for some time that Obama is a thoughtful, reflective person and McCain is not.

But I still don't think Obama wrote "Dreams From My Father." You don't shoot a 422 page hole-in-one the first time out if you've never swung a golf club before. And there is no evidence Obama ever wrote anything remotely comparable to "Dreams" in terms of style, metaphor, or allusion. What few samples we have of his earlier writings are unerringly pedestrian, like those of an activist attorney with plenty of ideology )and a tin ear for the written word).

Duscany said..."But I still don't think Obama wrote "Dreams From My Father."

And of course, that's based on absolutely nothing factual, but merely the opinion of someone who doesn't like or approve of anything Obama says or does. (And I can't believe you actually read the book anyway...did you?)

*I'm sure Obama, just as most authors, whether they be experienced or not, relied heavily on copy and structural editors after producing each draft.

And I also have to assume, based on your silly comment, that you don't do much reading.

Those were the words used in 1992 (or thereabouts) by ABC News personality George Stephanopoulus and former Clinton aide to describe Gennifer Flowers' statement that she had had a 12-year love affair with Presidential candidate Bill Clinton.

Six years later (ten years ago), on March 14, 1998, the New York Times reported the following:

"The Presidential deposition released today confirmed several revelations reported earlier, including Mr. Clinton's confirmation, after years of denial, that he had had sex with Gennifer Flowers, a one-time Arkansas worker."

The House impeached Clinton on charges arising from extramarital affairs and/or mistreatment of two other women; his trial in the Senate lasted 21 days.

The MSM was humiliated on the Clinton and Edwards' adultery stories. It's possible that Couric asked the question to set up Obama.

She's got to be aware of the Daily Mail article about the woman rumored to be his mistress. And of other rumors that the US press is about to go after the story. Wouldn't they be ultra-aggressive now, if for no other reason than to prove they're not in the tank for Obama?

And that's a first...a presidential candidate talking about picking his nose

I think McCain's "judge not" was not an authoritarian directive but rather an appeal to look at the situation the way the other guy sees it. He had in mind the full quote that you provided, which means that others will judge you the way you judge them.

Obama is saying the same thing, although in a modern way. He is aware of public scrutiny and judgement of his actions. He is aware that his actions will be held against his words.

Great answers by both men. Either one will be a fine president, but McCain is 73 and his vice president is a small town bigot.

Obama stresses his personal effort to achieve integrity. Obama's answer is more articulate, more deeply touching. I like the way we can see him thinking, formulating values. McCain by contrast, takes refuge in the teachings of traditional morality. This is evidence -- take note! -- that in some very fundamental way Obama is a liberal and McCain is a conservative.

LOL! You seem to be forgetting that of the two of them, McCain is the one who engaged in (multiple) extramarital affairs.

He's quoting the Bible verse "Judge not..." not because he has such reverence for traditional Judeo-Christian teaching, but because he could so obviously be judged himself!

cokaygne, the first gubernatorial veto cast by the prson you refer to as a "small town bigot" was of an Alaska Legislature bill that would have done an end-run around an Alaska Supreme Court decision which mandated that the state extend the same full benefits package to same-sex partners as to married ones.

Bigotry is forming unchangeable opinions based on fantasy or fear or misinformation. Look in a mirror.

Michael, I agree with jdeeripper: As for Obama being racially "obsessed," one need look no further than (a) the occasion of his first national celebrity, on becoming the first black president of the Harvard Law Review; (b) the subtitle of his first book: "A Story of Race and Inheritance"; (c) the subject of his first speech to the American public at the 2004 DNC; (d) his most famous (and ridiculously overpraised) speech of the campaign; (e) the massive, but comparatively quiet, efforts being made to mobilize black voters, including some number who couldn't tell you his Veep nominee's name if their lives depended on it, but who do indeed know Barack Obama's race; and (f) the #1 defense played by both his campaign and his allies to any criticism leveled against him.

I would not go so far as to say that it squeezes out all of his other interests and concerns. Nor is it particularly unexpected of someone with his atraditional personal family background. But "obsessed with race" isn't too harsh a description. And he and his campaign want to make this election -- which ought to be about what's best for America in the broadest possible sense -- about race relations instead.

Prof. A: Thanks for the pointer to the interesting mouth movements. What's particularly interesting to me is how quickly his lips are moving, as if he's previewing the sentence he's about to speak, or (more likely) re-saying something he's already said to ensure that what's about to come out next will fit, in the kind of compressed and squeaky voice of a replaying dictaphone. You listened to his first book on tape/disc, rather than reading it, if I recall correctly. I'm not someone who gives any credence to the idea that it was ghost-written, because I know just how much most lawyers, and every former law review editor, believes him/herself to hold within the Next Great American Novel. (The second book may well have been completely ghosted.) But I wonder: Do you have any guess as to whether he composed his first book on a keyboard (typewriter or computer) or with a pen in hand, as opposed to with a dictaphone? I'm guessing the latter.

I like the way we can see him thinking, formulating values. McCain by contrast, takes refuge in the teachings of traditional morality. This is evidence -- take note! -- that in some very fundamental way Obama is a liberal and McCain is a conservative.

Could it just be that McCain is 72 full of life experiences and Obama is not?

Obama has to think. He has not experienced enough of anything to arrive at the conclusions necessary to be able to answer a question with any kind of conviction.

Professor Althouse: "forumlating values." hmmmm. Since values are what one personally believes, I am not sure that I want Senator Obama formulating MY values. He is free, of course, to formulate his own values as long as he doesnt push them down my throat. I do agree, however, that you have put your finger on a fundamental difference between what passes as conservatives (Burkean conservatives) and modern liberalism (progessivism).. I will have no part of the latter.

I think the answers represent the fact that, in part, McCain has been adulterous in the past, and therefore would rather not answer the question because it perhaps brings back pain that he would rather forget, and Obama doesn't understand because perhaps to him, I hope, adultery is something he's never considered and therefore is not something he's thought about.

I too like to see someone actually 'thinking' about a question. Though McCain I believe is as well, he's just more reflexive in his answer (again perhaps due to his experience on the subject).

no Michael: because he smokes? No, because it cant stop. When you can't control your own addictive behaviors that,in fact, affect others, including those in your immediate family, you forfeit the right to dictate to others how to control the behaviors of others. Clear enough?

Michael, I don't have time to re-watch the entire clip, but my recollection is that at the very end of his answer, McCain says something like "I've been there," or makes some other fairly clear reference to his own history.

He's never hidden his adultery. To the contrary, every time he's asked about his greatest failure, he references the dissolution of his first marriage and takes full responsibility for that. (I've never seen a marriage in which one party was guilt-free, but McCain isn't quibblng.) And as with the Keating Five mess, it something that he's squarely addressed and learned from. (Obama is still defending his overall relationship with Tony Rezko, while quibbling about whether he was merely boneheaded or bribed when Rezko, the professional slumlord, paid full asking price for the lot next door to the same seller who gave the Obamas a magnificent discount).

The smoking concerns me too, by the way -- less as a health hazard, although it's a horrible risk factor for black men of his age -- but as an egregious example of his lack of self-discipline in what's otherwise an apparently disciplined life. I'm an ex-smoker (heart attack victim), so I can empathize. But he and his campaign have been absolutely RUTHLESS, and entirely successful so far as I know, in preventing so much as a single credible (non-Photo Shopped) photograph or video of him smoking from being released to the public. (And he's been coy with his medical records too). There is a disturbing pattern, although I'm far, far more disturbed about him being a naive child when it comes to foreign policy and national defense, and him being a redistributionist when it comes to my wallet.

AL:News today on the increasing thuggishness of the delusional right wing:

- A reporter physically attacked and sent sprawling to the ground at a Palin event.

And now, for the thuggishness of the delusional left wing:

A spokeswoman for the Manhattan District Attorney confirms the authenticity of a story circulating on conservative blogs: That during a (rare, and small) McCain rally on Lexington Avenue and 51st Street in Manhattan last month, a hostile local grabbed a woman's sign, broke it, and hit her in the face.

Michael: you apparently have no concept of the historical evolution of smoking and its role in increasing the health hazards in American society--50 years ago, a majority of Americans smokes including FDR and Dwight David Eisenhower. Since then the role of tobacco and its associated health hazards have been made manifest. So your recitation of people who smokes in that generation, while of historical interest, entirely begs the question of smoking in today's society. But please continue.

McCain by contrast, takes refuge in the teachings of traditional morality.

WTF?

Traditional morality tells me that adultery is bad, and it is appropriate for folks in leadership positions to say so. And, BHO is correct: it's especially important for folks in leadership to not contradict what they preach.

How can McCain take such a dodge? He basically said that it's above his pay grade by leaving it to God and presumably the afterlife. I'm for more judging, not less--I thought that (in some ways) this was part of the "culture war."

In their own personal lives McCain and BHO's moral records don't fit with their respective positions in the "culture war."

At least, if BHO wins the election the cultural warriors won't need to cringe as McCain falls back on his true feelings about the "agents of intolerance," as he's put it himself.

I love all of the anti-smoking zealots. Shit, you may as well become a democrat with that attitude. You remind me of all of the anti-smoking loons I have to deal with in Los Angeles. I light up on outside patio at a restaurant and get looks as though I just murdered someone. Ridiculous.

I am a liberal and I smoke and I am not against tobacco companies in the least.

roger, I offered a reasoned answer: I certainly would like for Obama to stop smoking, although I have no idea how much he smokes, and with that said, I really have bigger concerns relating to our President and his performance.

But, as for smoking itself, genetics come into play. Everybody on my mother and father's side of my family smoked their whole life and no one died of lung cancer or even heart disease (unless you count it not beating at the end).

Personally, I smoked for a few years in college, but haven't for quite some time.

Otherwise, I'm going to continue to confront the right wing and try to show them how paranoid, delusional and unhinged they are. They've already done immense damage to the country I love and their movement must be defeated.

Blowing them kisses won't do the job, ya know?

And even Jesus confronted evildoers. Ask the moneychangers in the temple.

Frank McCourt was born in 1930, got an MA in English in 1958, and was over 60 years old when he wrote Angela's Ashes.

Norman Maclean was born in 1902, got a Doctorate in 1940, and was close to 70 years old when he wrote A River Runs Through It.

John Kennedy Toole was born in 1937 and studied for a doctorate in English at Columbia. He comes close to Obama since he wrote A Confederacy of Dunces in the 1960s when he was in his 20's. The book didn't win the Pulitzer until 1981, 11 years after his death.

Elizabeth Wurtzel was fired from the Dallas Morning News for plagarism. Prozac Nation has won no awards and the movie adapation, though previewed at the Toronto Film Festival, went straight to video with no US theatrical release.

Joanne "Jo" Rowling wrote Harry Potter pretty much full time while otherwise unemployed.

If I were to propose a view tat ALL AMERICANS stop smoking, 95% of the people here would scream to high heaven that I'm trying to tell them what to do...and that it's a God given and American right for them to do as they please.

no Michael, your answer was not reasoned at all: you simply cited a list of former smokers while ignoring the modern public health context. My point was that a person who cannot control his own addictions is a poor candidate for telling others how to control their behaviours. I have yet to see a reasoned answer on your part but please direct me to it, and I will apologize forthwith.

Now: congratulations your self discipline, and you and your family are better off for your personal self control

Roger, your line of reasoning is pretty weak, as I said above. If perfect control over one's personal habits is a requirement for the presidency I dare say nobody is qualified.

Obama has far more important flaws, like his tendency to coolly and calmly deliver flat-out lie when he thinks the truth would be politically damaging. Of course, that habit is enabled by the MSM on a frequent basis. His smoking habit ranks right up there with, oh, well, the number of squares of toilet paper he uses to wipe his ass. (Rumor has it he uses more than your average male.)

The Daily Mail speculates that BO had an affair with a former staffer, who is now living on a Caribbean island. Michelle Obama, who the Daily Post says has a liking for IRANIAN caviar, exiled her to the Caribbean island. Maybe BO will join the ranks of Eliot Spitzer and John Edwards in the next two weeks.

Here's you, a few minutes ago: AlphaLiberal: go pound sand. And I mean sand, not a Republican, something you libs do often enough. Republicans don't need to be lectured on thuggishness from the likes of you.

If I were to propose a view tat ALL AMERICANS stop smoking, 95% of the people here would scream to high heaven that I'm trying to tell them what to do...and that it's a God given and American right for them to do as they please.

The argument about Obama smoking is so silly it should be on SNL.

A lot of the commenters here are more idiosyncratic than your average repub, normal repubs find Obama's smoking a net plus. Reveals he isn't an anti-tobacco zealot, and does not tow the party line on everything. These are not normal repubs, normal repubs still support smoking(except in L.A.).

First, Couric is pretty good at asking this type of question and the format of comparing answers is excellent.

Second, I realize interpretation of these answers is pretty subjective, but Ann's positive interpretation of Obama's answer shows she is descending into the tank as an Obama supporter (not in a sinister way, but once you decide to support someone, you perceive him more positively). Obama basically said that he has learned not to get caught doing something bad when you are in public life. It was hardly a moralistic answer.

Ann's other point was Obama's weird mouthing of a word or two. I probably would not have noticed it. But someone smart could probably attach some meaning to it.

Third, I thought McCain's entire answer reflected his own guilt or sorrow or embarassment about his own extramarital affair.

What utter horseshit. I'm using that one instance as evidence that you libs have no basis for your self-righteousness on the subject. The point is that there are thugs on both sides and I don't choose to tar and feather the left because of their kooks.

And you also engage in name-calling a lot.

You mean names like "delusional right wing"? Go whine to your mother. Maybe she'll give you an extra cookie.

I'm using that one instance as evidence that you libs have no basis for your self-righteousness on the subject.

You brought a case to my attention. I condemned it. As would Howard Dean, Barack or Joe Biden.

You refuse to condemn right wing attacks and threats. John McCain defended the attendees at his rally during the debate and refused to condemn threats.

One group, Dems, criticizes their own for these acts. Another, Repubs, defend these actions.

Again, the difference is simple to grasp.

You mean names like "delusional right wing"?

That's not a name, it's an apt description. "Right wing" is a commonly accepted political description.

"Delusional" refers to:

a) attributing all critical press reports of Republicans to a liberal media conspiracy, b) elevating 15-year passing associations to a concern above issues of prosperity and war/peace, c) thinking that some low income workers falsely filling out some voter registration forms and then those forms being turned in, as required by law, is anything of any importance let alone a vast conspiracy,

d) thinking that you can manufacture your own realities and that the rest of us have to go along with it.

This list goes through Z, believe me. There's a motherlode of material on the delusional right wing.

No doubt Obama's talent exceeds McCain's on that score. But to be fair he's given some barnburners in his time. His 2004 convention speech was widely praised among Republicans... it was panned by the left, but I think that can be forgiven since it was by design highly partisan. I also think that his convention speech this year was received better than pundits initially predicted.

But Obama is supposed to condemn Ayers, Wright, whoever the right wing demands?

Well no, I think it's reasonable to limit our demands to people he's had close relationships with. You know, like a man he's served with on multiple boards, appeared on stage in public with, blurbed a book the man wrote, etc. etc. Or like a man who baptized his kids, gave him spiritual counsel for 20 years, etc. etc.

You want to compare Ayers and Wright to anonymous turd-bags at a political rally?

And what the hell does smoking have to do with self-control? We smoke because we enjoy it, I'm sure Obama loves every inhale as much as I do. I am far more disciplined than most people I know in every way, almost like my home is military(you can bounce a quarter on my bed).

What's discipline got to do with it? It's about pleasure and relaxation.

mcg, John is just fine, but he does appear to rely heavily on file cards and the like.

At this stage of the game I have a feeling smoking and speeches aren't going to weigh too much on the minds of voters.

I've said it before and will say it again: I think John McCain sealed his fate when he bypassed qualified V.P. nominees the likes of Romney, Pawlenty, Ridge and even Lieberman and selected Palin. (And yeah, yeah, I know all about the excitement and the base bullshit.)

I can't even imagine how he was talked into that...but as a Democrat I'm glad he was.

Otherwise, he would probably be leading in the polls and headed for the White House.

"Obama stresses his personal effort to achieve integrity. Obama's answer is more articulate, more deeply touching. I like the way we can see him thinking, formulating values."

Man, I didn't see that at all. I saw struggling to come up with an answer. And the answer basically was: given that I'm so much in the public eye I don't dare do things that I otherwise might want to. Not that much of a "value," but better than Clinton recklessness if true.

He presents his concern with public image as being a desire to make sure no one gets a false impression of him; but, given his past close association with currently "inconvenient" characters (Ayers, Wright, Rezko), I have to think he's more worried about the opposite sort of mismatch between image and reality.

Joe the Plumber is, what, 50? hey, I agree the media have gone off the deep end on him, as they are wont to do. Though just looking at his expected income and seeing how it fares under the different tax plans shouldn't be an issue.

But the right wing has a bit of "consistency" (they're very sensistive so I won't say "hypocrisy") problem here. It's worth noting and learning from.

Here's a NY TImes take: One week ago, Joe Wurzelbacher was just another working man living in a modest ranch house near Toledo thinking about how to expand his plumbing business. But when he stopped Senator Barack Obama during a visit to his block this weekend to ask about his taxes, he set himself on a path to being the newest media celebrity — and, like other celebrities, found himself under scrutiny.

Yes, it suggests he sought to ask Obama a question---when Obama was walking his neighborhood.

Mr. Wurzelbacher told Ms. Couric that his encounter with Mr. Obama was a matter of impulse.“Neighbors were outside asking him questions, and I didn’t think they were asking him tough enough questions,” he said.

Nothing wrong with dragging a kid with health problems and his family through the mud, eh, mcg?

Do you even read what I wrote or do you just argue for the sake of it? I said it was unseemly. It is possible for there to be blame on both sides here. It was wrong for the Frost kid to be used by the Democrats and the conservative response was unseemly.

In fact, I'll even admit that in hindsight McCain should have known the left would pounce on Joe the Plumber and shouldn't have brought him up so directly at the debate.

a) He's been all over the media, hardly shy about it. His claim of being hosed by Obamas tax plan is worth discussing but not every little detail of his lfe*). b) I don't care and it's not relevant.

* - I do find his close familial relationship to Charles Keating, found by a conservative web site, to be intriguing. Remember, the convicted fraud Charles Keating vowed to be "together for life" with John McCain. Are they still BFFs?

"I am far more disciplined than most people I know in every way, almost like my home is military(you can bounce a quarter on my bed)." Ingreity: you have no clue: you mistake anal retentivness for discipline. The rest of your post goes downhill from that.

"Obama stresses his personal effort to achieve integrity. Obama's answer is more articulate, more deeply touching. I like the way we can see him thinking, formulating values."

Yea, someone who can see thinking. That is the guy I want negoiating nuclear weapon treaties, trade deals, and other important issues. I am sure he will do great when the opposition knows what he is thinking.

Um... which are the "numerous" "violent" Republican attacks you're referring to, alpha? Could you please cite them (so we can count)? (NB the lack of corroboration by anyone else re the "kill him" remark, ostensibly shouted when Palin was talking about *Ayers*. In any case, I assume wishes of death/assassination of Republican presidents/candidates, expressed at rallies, must be few and far between..)

I assume by "violent attack" you primarily mean "violent act"... like, oh, hitting a person in the face with a sign, or throwing molotov cocktails, or defacing property... As opposed to "just words" like-- oh, approvingly predicting a candidate's gang rape...

And I will merely note (since I don't have time to dig up the McCain quote), it is one thing to (quite rightly) "defend [the vast 99.9% majority of] attendees at his rally" as good, patriotic Americans (refuse the insulting suggestion that they are to be conflated with the "fringe element" that exists on *both* sides) and quite another to "refuse to condemn threats."

Why even converse with Alpha Lib? The Obamessiah was questioned doubtfully by one of the serfs. The press and Obamas campaign (but I repeat myself) must destroy him for being a doubter of The Ones Plan. Barrage of "news" stories from National Media? Of course that equals 1 blogger driving by The Democrat poster child for more socialisms house and noting it's a pretty nice property to own for someone saying they need a hand-out.

Saying Obamas tax plan would unjustly take money earned is ALWAYS the same as leftwing politicians using a child to pimp for the another welfare scheme for people who don't really need the money.

And if George Bush were to move his lips like that before he spoke, we'd get a deluge of articles about how stupid W is, cause he cain't think without moving his lips.

You probably don't own a home, so this may come as a surprise but you don't need a "license" to be a plumber. It's not like a medical license or a law license.

It's a business license. A lot of people don't bother to get one because it's just a tax that towns use to generate fees. (And most plumbers who do residential work aren't in the union, so the NYT can go fuck itself on that as well. Do they have any reporters who actually know anything?)

Also, Joe works for a business so it's up to the business to get the license, not Joe. That's why it's a license.

Leave Joe alone. He's a single dad who works for a living who owes some back taxes, no big deal.

Charlie Rangel owes way more in back taxes than JtP, and Charlie's in charge of the committee that writes the tax code. He hasn't even had to give up his chair of the Ways & Means committee because the Dems consider this such a minor transgression.

Also, Obama's campaign treasurer owes back taxes as well, and he makes way more than JtP and is, you know, a financial guy who should probably be better with his money than a plumber.

Hopefully JtP can turn this celebrity into something, write a few books about himself, and run for POTUS in 4 years. That appears to be all it takes.

I viewed the answers again and was struck by their weakness. McCain knows that everyone knows he has cheated (although not a powerful politician at the time), so he wanted nothing to do with the question. Obama considered it a question about tactics and how important it is to avoid getting caught doing something wrong, and he really struggled to get through it (my guess is that he probably has cheated on his wife as well).

Neither attempted to answer the question about why guys do it, but presumably as guys, they both know why guys do it - a combination of the thrill and pleasure of sex with a new and attractive woman and the calculation (with mental capacity diminished by the lust for the sex) that they are unlikely to get caught. I also assume that once they have sex with a woman, then they probably calculate that continuing to have sex with her will diminish the likelihood of exposure (since it will help to keep the woman quiet while continuing to provide the pleasure of the sex).

I think this subject is probably something that most guys understand and most women do not. Looking at Couric ask the question, she certainly seemed to come across as not being able to imagine why a guy would do it.

"I’ve learned that I have what I believe is the right temperament for the presidency. Which is, I don’t get too high when I’m high and I don’t get too low when I’m low. And we’ve gone through all kinds of ups and downs."

I don't think Couric has had to sleep with anyone in recent years to get ahead, although my recollection is that there were some fairly well logcial sounding stories about her doing so at the start of her career. But that is a different issue. If it is true that she used sex to advance her career, she was not risking loss of career through exposure; she was advancing her career through promiscuity.

Not the facts but the suspicions-you're having a hard time with even the hypotheticals-

Man this is getting gross-

Here is CBS News trying to top fake but accurate: {I wish this place did blockquotes-this is all CBs "reporting"}-

Other blogs say Wurzelbacher may be related to Charles Keating of the Keating Five and that his father is a major Republican donor:

Joe the Plumber, the star of tonight's debate, may have a very interesting connection to John McCain. In fact, Joe the Plumber (Joe Wurzelbacher) of Cincinnati, Ohio may be related to one Robert Wurzelbacher of Cincinnati, Ohio, who happens to be Charles Keating's son-in-law. Robert Wurzelbacher was implicated in the Keating 5 scandal, and sentenced to 40 months in prison in 1993. Wurzelbacher is also a huge Republican donor.

Keep watching this story because if it proves true that "Joe the Plumber" is the wealthy, Republican regular the liberal blogs are claiming he is, the McCain campaign could go down as the most corrupt and inept in history.

All journeymen and apprentices working in the City of Toledo must hold a City of Toledo license in their respective trade.

Building Inspection is responsible for examining all journeymen and registering all apprentices and contractors. If you cannot find what you are looking for, please contact the Division of Building Inspection at 419.245.1220

Keep diggin' dirt on that unlicensed (illegal, undocumented) plumber. You guys have no idea where you're going with this do you?

Republicans make a practice of (1) Thinking obeying the law is for jerks, and (2) basing their policy decisions on bullshit.

Gawd people are trying to drag me out to see "W" I've got to come up with a Plan B..

Just tell them you can't watch horror movies.

But I still don't think Obama wrote "Dreams From My Father."

Well, I think Maureen Daly wrote "Seventeenth Summer," and Betty Smith wrote "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn," even though the 16-and-under MD did not leave much of a paper trail. Maybe autobiographical novels turn out better.

I really would like to know how a person's occupational license affects their opinion.

Also, I predict that this general kind of politics of personal destruction will soon backfire on its makers in unexpected ways. Thankfully, you'll always have charges of racism and stupidity to fall back on. Just remember: it's not you. It's them.

That's what I like about him, in one-on-one interviews. Makes me think I'd like him as a friend, at least, if not as a president.

I saw him move his lips, put them together in a "P" to say next "President" of the United States when he first introduced Joe Biden. He didn't say it just then but I saw him almost say it; and then it got away from him and he did say it the next time. Yes, if you watch you can read his mind!

The difference is generational as well as ideological. Since the 1960s (remember the "confessional poets"?) we've lived in an age of public psychology, introspection, confession, and memoir. You're right that in McCain's time, public and private were separate and accepted as very different. You put a good face on things in public and kept your sins, addictions, etc. under wraps. Conservatives still somewhat operate on that principle. For liberals, on the other hand, almost the worst sin is hypocrisy, maybe because of the depth of the disillusionment when hypocrites are exposed. What Obama is trying to avoid is hypocrisy. Conservatives, on the other hand, are fond of quoting -- I think it's LaRochefoucauld: "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue."

I was in Stuttgart Airport, on my way to Milan to meet J, my husband, who was making a commercial there. (They flew him, I found a cut-rate flight.) 1998.

Some bohemian, spiritually-correct middle-aged Germans were seeing off a Tibetan monk in saffron robes. He looked to be maybe in his mid to late 40s. They treated him with great reverence and a visible self-satisfaction at being involved with him.

After they left, the monk sat there and picked his nose completely openly -- screwed his pinky finger up there, with no embarrassment or reflex of polite concealment.

I was awed. Was this a case of, "Enlightenment means never having to say you're sorry for picking your nose?" Or was it just normal Tibetan country manners?

When Dedalus had put the last touches to what he had begun, the artificer balanced his own body between the two wings and hovered in the moving air. He instructed the boy as well, saying ‘Let me warn you, Icarus, to take the middle way, in case the moisture weighs down your wings, if you fly too low, or, if you go too high, the sun scorches them. Travel between the extremes. And I order you not to aim towards Bootes, the Herdsman, or Helice, the Great Bear, or towards the drawn sword of Orion: Take the course I show you!’

At the same time as he laid down the rules of flight, he fitted the newly created wings on the boy’s shoulders. While he worked and issued his warnings, the aging man’s cheeks were wet with tears: The father’s hands trembled.

He gave a never-to-be-repeated kiss to his son, and lifting upwards on his wings, flew ahead, anxious for his companion, like a bird, leading her fledglings out of a nest above, into the empty air. He urged the boy to follow and showed him the dangerous art of flying, moving his own wings and then looking back at his son.

Some angler catching fish with a quivering rod or a shepherd leaning on his crook or a ploughman resting on the handles of his plough saw them, perhaps, and stood amazed, believing them to be gods able to travel the sky.

at the end of the day Obama is going to beat micky C by a whopper of a margin, we won't have Miss ColdThighs of Alaska to make fun of, the country will be in the mess GWB let it, we will be in 3-4 wars and no one living here except Friends of George will be able to afford oatmeal.

On the brigh side, we will have a President who can speak the majority language of the nation, who won't start every sentence like it was a Quaker meeting (well my friends! my ass), who doesn't spend all day finding the bottom of the pit of low class/low rent, who has nothing to glorify him past being a POW... and I mean that with respect.

McCain's shinning moment came 40 years ago. He has only bitched on moaned since.

McCain's answer is entirely a function of his past experience of committing adultery, and some basic revulsion he feels about being judgmental towars others on that issue as a result (public figures or otherwise). But it reveals nothing about him neyond that.

Obama is, as always, giving us a window to his inner self. Whatever else you can say about him, this type of answer can only provoke admiration, assuming it is true (which we have every reason to believe, and absolutely none to disbelieve).

Those who who are inclined to judge Obama as insincere or "political" do so on every issue nd everyhting he says or does. It says much more about them than it does about him. But at least there is every indication that what we see is what we get; that despite his past associations, which have been deeply distorted by his political enemies for their own political benefit, his public life has reflected none of the political extremism or immorality that typify those with whom he is being associated. I wish I could say the same for McCain, who seems to have been unduly influenced by Gordon Liddy, Rush Limbaugh and other immoral men who have made a life's work of casting aspersions at others for the sake of their seriously warped political ideologies.

"Obama's skin color has obscured a pretty basic fact about him: he seems to have had a very conservative private life as a public figure. His marriage and family life have been much more traditional than John McCain's - someone who admits to promiscuity and adultery and divorce. Unlike McCain he's a long-time regular church-goer." Sullivan twists himself in knots

SGT Ted said..."Lefties have no problem with illegal aliens (lawbreakers by definition) working unlicensed for construction companies, but a citizen that doesn't have a license is to be shunned as a law breaker."

I'm sure you know that McCourt taught Engish for 30 years before he wrote his book. My wife, a nationally certified teacher, teaches high school English too. She regularly grades 100 papers a week and writes personal essays and professional journal articles and a dozen other things. If she wanted to write a memoir, she easily could. But she has a 27 year paper trail behind her, starting with her PhD thesis. Where is Obama's paper trail? Time magazine called "Dreams From My Father" a masterpiece. I won't quibble with that. All I want to know is what did Obama write before "Dreams" that has any literary merit whatsoever? He had to have written something--a short story, an essay, a letter to a friend--that at least showed a hint of literary sophistication.

But there are no hints with Obama. He never wrote anything, just as he never wrote "Dreams From My Father" either.

Ive never understood how we can allow people such atrocities in their lives to be president. And its not that they cant committ them but be honest... I mean jeez we dont need anymore lying and fear mongering.... its like my favorite book America2014 explains. Its a sequel of 1984 and demonstrates the reality possible with a Cheney Bush like administration we can not have eight years more of the same. check out the books altered bill of rights at America2014.com

Ive never understood how we can allow people such atrocities in their lives to be president. And its not that they cant committ them but be honest... I mean jeez we dont need anymore lying and fear mongering.... its like my favorite book America2014 explains. Its a sequel of 1984 and demonstrates the reality possible with a Cheney Bush like administration we can not have eight years more of the same. check out the books altered bill of rights at America2014.com

When McCain was in the middle of that interview, he didn't know what Couric was going to say next. If he had criticized adulterers, for all he knew, she might have retorted that he, by his own admission, has committed adultery. He was trying to minimize how bad he'd look if she had brought that up (or if viewers made the connection themselves).

I don't suppose he's Clinton-esque or anything. But the #1 ingredient in infidelity is opportunity. Politicians and movie stars hardly stand a chance.

So, there's a prejudice there. Call it "the prejudice of celebrity".

And, hey, maybe Vera Baker really did do something non-sexual for her paycheck, even if it didn't match her title, and maybe she ran off to Martinique for non-BHO-related reasons, I certainly don't know.

I do know that the press isn't going to pursue it as long as there are dumpsters in Wasila to be rooted through, and people to make the adultery claim against Sarah and Todd Palin that are six-times removed.

So, you could call that the "prejudice of If they could clear it, they would, but since they can't it's best just to ignore it."

Well, first, I suppose, because of the NYT's ombudsman maintaining that the point of the story wan't to allege that McCain had an affair. Because, you know, if they had, they would've had to have come up with some sort of evidence.

Second, because it was such a transparent attempt to plant that idea in people's minds, absence of any actual proof, that the blog proprietress called this argument ludicrous. And yet, here you are offering it as evidence.

Like all political propaganda, the point isn't to prove anything but to make the accusation stick. Whether Obama's Islamic beliefs or the idea that John McCain was a material part of the Keating 5, this stuff gets thrown out so that useful idiots can advance some perceived cause.

Second, because it was such a transparent attempt to plant that idea in people's minds, absence of any actual proof...

Oh, there's evidence. The reporter talked to McCain staffers, and by the reporter's account, they were "convinced" that McCain's relationship with that woman had become "romantic."

It's hearsay, and it's open to question, and it's fine with me if you don't believe it. Of course it's possible that the reporter stretched the truth, or that the staffers were misperceiving things or were just lying. But it is evidence.

So I don't see why you'd think it's "beneath serious commentary" -- given that your earlier comment clearly suggests that you think politicians' affairs can be relevant.

Oh, there's evidence. The reporter talked to McCain staffers, and by the reporter's account, they were "convinced" that McCain's relationship with that woman had become "romantic."

That's not evidence of anything. You have to believe first of all that the reporters: a) didn't just flat make it up; b) talked to someone who was in a position to know; c) said source was capable of making a competent decision.

Now, since the official stance on the story was that it wasn't meant to even so much as imply that McCain actually had an affair, yet here you are citing it as exactly such, I'm inclined to conclude that someone's being dishonest.

In other words, it's only evidence that, minimally, the journalist(s) in question wanted to smear McCain. Whether or not they interviewed others with the same mission isn't really relevant.

Sort of like, I could decide Jews are the cause of the world's problems, and then to "report" on that "fact", I could interview Palestinians, Arabs, Nazis and the occasional Althouse commenter, but none of it would amount to actual evidence.

It's hearsay, and it's open to question, and it's fine with me if you don't believe it. Of course it's possible that the reporter stretched the truth, or that the staffers were misperceiving things or were just lying. But it is evidence.

It's not even hearsay of actual acts, it's hearsay of suspicions. Granted, that looks like the gold standard these days, what with us now getting rumors of hearsay of suspicions.

But, you see, you're still acting like the purpose of the story was to bring some facts to light, but in fact, the purpose of the story was to smear McCain. The "facts" are marshaled, or created, as necessary to fulfill the mission.

So I don't see why you'd think it's "beneath serious commentary" -- given that your earlier comment clearly suggests that you think politicians' affairs can be relevant.

Where do I suggest that?

What I suggest is that the question was asked in order to embarrass McCain. His affairs, real and imagined, are out in the open. Obama knows he's in safe hands, 'cause no one's gonna bring up his indiscretions.